I received an email from a family member entitled “A German’s View on Islam”. It’s a hoax email, but I didn’t know that until I did further research. If anyone is interested in the contents of the email that was sent to me, those contents can be found here:

I put a lot of thought into the response I emailed to my family members, however, and thought I should post my thoughts here because the topic and subsequent discussions still seem relevant.

This is a slightly edited version of the email response I sent to my family members:

I, too, was disappointed when I read this email. I wouldn’t say I was “shocked” because I’ve heard a lot of this before. The “no go zones” stirred up a lot of controversy when Bobby Jindal talked about them, and then defended his statements on CNN. At the risk of getting into an all-out war with everyone, I’d like to share my thoughts. Please remain civil. Attacking each other is not going to help anything.

I read this a few minutes after it was sent out, and had an immediate reaction, but I was watching the State of the Union address, so I thought I’d wait to respond. Then I thought it might be best not to respond, but since I see others have already done so, I will.

I was immediately intrigued by a sociological examination of current Muslim terrorism. (To be clear, I’m in no way saying all Muslims are terrorists or that we should “kill” Muslims–or terrorists. Extrajudicial killing, though usually done for practical purposes, adds to the problem.) My first thought was that the timeline must be off. An aristocrat pre-Nazi power? The fact that this person would still be alive and writing articles is not impossible, but surprising. I understood this man as saying he was a well-established businessman by the 1930s. I would think this would make him at least 100 years old today. I didn’t do the research Robin did, so I can’t tell you who Emmanuel Tanya [as it appeared in the email–his real name was Emanuel Tanay] is, or who this story/email originates from.

[I later did do the research.]

I have no reason to doubt the idea that many Germans rallied behind a renewed German nationalism or that much of the population didn’t follow as close attention to politics as it should have. My issue comes with comparison of Nazi Germany to not only today’s situation of global terrorism, but to situations unrelated to either in recent history. It’s very sexy to compare any situation to Nazism. Heads of majority Muslim countries that support terrorist organizations within their own borders (and without) are not Hitler, just as terrorist cells are not comparable to the early Nazi party. I think it does a tremendous disservice to all of the victims of extreme violence, tribal warfare, ethnic cleansing, and genocide to lump them all together. There are unique causes and conditions that occurred in Rwanda, the Balkans, China, Japan, etc. The barest of similarities can be made with the rise of Nazism and the subsequent genocide that occurred in Germany. Yes, ethnic and religious hatreds exist around the world, unfathomable acts of barbarism are practiced in an effort to gain and maintain power, and runaway ideology used as a justification for almost anything did not end in Germany in 1945. If we conflate every conflict, we misunderstand history and have even less chance of effectively mitigating the worst situations. It is pure ignorance to say ISIS or Al Qaeda or Boko Haram or any large terrorist organization of the moment is tantamount to the Nazi party. I’m not trying to diminish their threat or barbarism, but there are so many differences that I don’t think it’s a useful or proper comparison.

That those who scream the loudest or instill the most fear often get the most attention is not something I will dispute. Have terrorists overwhelmed the “silent majority”? I would say this is not true in every case, but yes, they pose significant threats to the very lives of those who live near (or more unfortunately, under) them. Ask anyone who has escaped from ISIS-controlled territory. The idea that those around them, the “moderate Muslims”, or, in this case, “peace-loving Muslims” should call out the poisonous apples in their ranks is an attractive one. Wouldn’t that be wonderful if everyone said “not in my name” to the point that their civil views drowned out the hatred and suicide bombings and maiming and beheading and stoning executed by the extremists? 1. Try doing this in a country where blogging your dissent can get you 1,000 lashes. (This happens in Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, that practices its own form of extremism.) The new head of “Charlie Hebdo” was asked how he felt about the cartoons of Mohammed drawn by his magazine staff not being shown in much of Western media. He said that he very much understood the threat posed by those living under authoritarian regimes and in places where free speech is hindered and “insulting the Prophet” can result in death. He did not encourage people to “stand up” in the face of such retribution. He did say, however, that he believed those who live in so-called “democratic” countries with stronger free speech protections were cowards for not showing the cartoons. I mention this because whatever your view on this, the point I’m making is that we tend to assume it’s just as easy for people around the world to openly “stand up for what is right”. It’s not. Perhaps the author is arguing that those who were silent let things get to this point. I’m not sure that’s entirely fair either. 2. It’s a nice idea, but will the terrorists just decide that violent jihad is no longer a good idea because most people wag their fingers at them? It’s a nice sentiment, but I doubt there’s significant merit to it. 3. Why should every member of a group be responsible for the actions of every other member of that group? Are we not all individuals? (“The Daily Show” made this point very well about 2 weeks ago.)

I’m not a proponent of any religion. I think passages from the Qu’ran as well as passages from the New and Old Testaments are despicable. There are extremists who will follow these tomes to the letter, including many Muslims. This is real and it is dangerous. I don’t have a solution that will address all of the root causes of the upswell in Muslim terrorism and extremism.

I do not agree that this email calls for the killing of all Muslims. I know there have been several instances of controversy regarding the Lord’s Prayer being shafted in favor of Muslim prayers at major institutions. I can’t speak to the validity of this claim. While I would like separation of church and state to actually exist, religious freedom should be extended to all. No group should be favored and allowed to practice if another is not.

The email mentions the dangers of labeling food as halal. Does anyone care if it’s labeled kosher? These labels mean nearly the same thing. (Muslims shopped at the Jewish market that was recently attacked in Paris!) I suppose this is an attempt to warn Western nations of the infiltration of their societies by especially motivated and mobilized outsiders. Instead of looking at this development as one toward greater unity and understanding, there are those who see it as a threat to their very existence. I do not condone any system that treats women and minorities as lesser, that puts religion above the safety and wellbeing of others, whether this is a perversion of the religion by some or not. Ooh, an imam supervised the baking of a chocolate bar. That’s really symbolic. Forget real terrorism. Now we should all be cowed.

I have a pretty simple question. This is not meant to alienate anyone, but I’m curious about the answer. If you consider yourself a conservative, and claim government as the enemy, why would you want to be a part of the system?

I’m not quite sure when conservatism became synonymous with spending no money and dismantling government as we know it, but here we are. If you’d like to reform the system in such a way that it better serves people, to make it more efficient, I understand that. That does not, however, mean destroying the Environmental Protection Agency, privatizing all education, and taking a sledgehammer to unions. It doesn’t mean cutting food stamp programs by billions of dollars to starving children and families because Ayn Rand gave you the idea that you could pull yourself up by your bootstraps and, you know, ideologically, it just doesn’t sit well with you that there are people out there “getting handouts”.

Recently, I was attacked by someone as I know as being the kind of person who “loves government”, and who defends its practices. While this is a blanket statement–I don’t support everything the federal government of the United States does–yes, I tend to support government. Since when should that be an insult?

This is a word of warning to the anarchists and the so-called libertarians and all the others who fancy themselves modern day revolutionaries. We live in a country comprised of approximately 320 million people. Among those 320 million, there are varying states of education, income, opportunities, and health conditions. Even from state to state, living conditions vary widely. We live in a patchwork society of diverse demographics, from age to culture to ethnicity.

But more important than even our differences are our connections to one another. Even if you don’t believe in a kumbaya ideal or attach the words “communism” or “socialism” to anything that remotely resembles cooperation, you have to admit that we must interact with one another in society. We merge on the same roads. We go to schools and workplaces with others. We purchase goods and services on a daily basis. These are the basics.

And we all benefit from services provided by the government from traffic lights to mail delivery to public libraries. It was often cited in the direct aftermath of the recent government shutdown that the biggest winners were the National Parks. Even the most self reliant among us love our national parks. And who can resist nature? Thoreau did write about Walden Pond, after all.

Government–from the lowest levels to the highest–has a role to play. This role is a significant one. Whether we’re talking about “entitlement” programs or passing the very laws that enable us to live in a stable society, we need government.

Grover Norquist’s colorful imagery of shrinking government to the point that we can “drown it in the bathtub” is disgusting. I’d really like to see where all these people would be without government services.

You can’t say “hands off my guns” (and my taxes and my religion), and then decide that government overreach is non-existent when it comes to “pension reform” or controlling reproductive choices or shutting down marriage equality or denying atheists and secularists the same respect as religion (often mainstream Christianity) is afforded.

Is that the real aim: to remake society in one’s own image? To so fundamentally alter the landscape of the United States as to comport a self-styled combination of the Bible and the “good old days”? To decry diversity and change and progress? Perhaps the most effective way is to declare the evils of the monstrous government that swallows all of our money, that ever-growing Leviathan run by the evil corporatists and opportunists who work in a place worse than hell. This place–gasp–is called Washington, D.C., and it’s where dreams go to die. Worse yet, it’s where the government bogeymen are killing all of your dreams too.

…Except that many of the government haters work there too. From local governments to state houses, thousands of people who won elections on the idea that government is the root of all evil are reaping its benefits in the form of salaries, health care, jobs, contracts, success, relative levels of fame, and the furtherance of their agendas using the tool that’s supposed to be their kryptonite.

I’m a vegetarian. I hate the entire system that goes into the production of killing animals so that people can eat them. Do I continue to eat meat, and say how horrible the system is? No. If it’s so abhorrent to you, government haters, how can you be a part of it? Are you trying to change it from the inside, out? That begins with a respect for its very existence and the admission that you want to be a part of that system, at the very least. If principle is so important, at least be honest with the public and yourselves.

Yesterday, an act of pure malice occurred. At around 2:50 pm, 2 bombs (and a little later, an unrelated explosion), exploded near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The current casualty count is 3 deaths (including an 8 year old boy) and 144 injuries, many of which are amputations caused by the nearby bombs.

I was on the phone with my friend in California when my mom told me to turn on the TV. When I first saw the early coverage a few minutes after the bombs detonated, I said to my friend and to my mom, “This looks like a coordinated attack”. Police and other officials were very careful in the first few hours about calling the event any kind of attack or concerted effort. When Vice President Biden used the term
“act of terror”–which is what this was–the media went crazy about the significance of this term. All kinds of national security phrases like “post-9/11 world” were repeated ad nauseum by frenzied reporters and anchors who freely admitted they didn’t really know what was going on. When President Obama spoke almost four hours later about what had by then been clearly defined as an attack, the media noted that he did not use the words “terror” or “terrorist”. A quick lesson in semantics: Anyone who makes a deliberate effort to attack a group of people with the intention of inciting fear in the public is a terrorist. A terrorist is one who performs acts of terror, aiming to terrorize the populace. This is very simple. One need not be a member of Al Qaeda or a related group to qualify as a terrorist. In fact, there are plenty of types of terror that don’t fit this mold. Eco-terrorism is one example.

My point in writing this blog post is to criticize the media response in the immediate aftermath of this horrible event.

My main criticisms are that:

1. Reporters should not worry about nuance and policy wonkery, and they should call a spade a spade. Of course people are terrified (the very hallmark of an act of terror), and of course they’re sad. Our collective conscience has been shocked. Many of the racers and bystanders admitted that they were still in shock. The media owes everyone a clear explanation.

2. Do not tell people how to make homemade bombs on national television. An “expert” on CNN began talking about the various compositions of bombs, naming chemicals such as C4, and then detailing other, easier ways to make homemade bombs since stores are now on the lookout for people who buy large amounts of fertilizer at one time. Thank you for that information. I sure hope the wrong people don’t use that. Would it inspire anyone watching? Of course not. What a silly idea.

3. If you are going to show pictures, make an effort to preserve the privacy and the dignity of those who are severely injured. It’s an incredible understatement to say that showing people with blown off limbs and people who are lying, bleeding in the streets and unmoving as they’re carted onto ambulances adds unnecessary insult to injury. Aren’t there editors who are paid to make such executive decisions? There are always going to be those disgusting people who post pictures of the most gruesome injuries on websites devoted to such things. This is obviously disgraceful. Associated Press and CNN, however, don’t have to follow suit. All I’m urging is discretion in coverage. We don’t see flag-draped coffins of soldiers who died in war on TV, but we can see potential corpses of civilians?

4. Stop trying to argue political significance. We know, you’re as confused and upset as everyone. And that’s ok. That’s human, and that’s understandable. You do, however, have an audience of millions of people who come to you to find out what’s happening. You have an obligation to take the responsibility of journalism seriously. I know, you’re so used to pundits “debating” each other for countless empty hours, you may find it difficult to escape that ethos. It’s fine that it’s Patriots’ Day. No one has school in Massachusetts on Patriots’ Day. Therefore, there are more potential (and likely) victims because more people (including a large number of children) will be on the streets of Boston, possibly watching the Marathon. Even if these people are not watching the Marathon, they might just be in downtown Boston. Fine. Please do not speculate on the significance of Patriots’ Day to the attack. Do not enter conspiracy theory territory to fill airtime. It’s unbecoming, not to mention a disservice to your viewers, readers, and listeners. Wall to wall coverage does not a credible journalistic institution make. Speaking of credibility, I want to hear things like “There were no threats deemed credible prior to the race”. This is real news. Thank you. More of that, please.

5. Twitter may be a source of misinformation. As you claimed, a lot of early reports can turn out to be wrong. CNN, you, especially should know this lesson well. (Remember that not so little slip up you made when you reported that the Supreme Court struck down the Affordable Care Act aka the disdainfully mocked “Obamacare” plan? Yeah. Oops. Rick Perry understands your embarrassment.)
Because of the ephemeral and near instantaneous nature of tweets combined with the echo chamber effect of the network, secondhand citizen journalists are bound to get key details wrong. I know for a fact that, even hours later, people were tweeting incorrect facts on Twitter. I saw it myself. Just remember: Twitter is often not an authoritative source.

6. Do not kill the story. I don’t know where the line is, and obviously, the Boston Marathon bombings are a huge story. There are, however, many other stories in the country, and especially, the world. It’s ok to report on those too. If you keep showing the same pictures and build an entire cottage industry out of a story, not only are you being exploitative, but you are numbing people to the significance of the event by bombarding them with it, uninterrupted, for days on end. Unfortunately, this is what occurred with the Sandy Hooking shooting spree story and the Trayvon Martin shooting (and subsequent obsession with shooter George Zimmerman).

Terror is terror. If you’re so careful about your phrasing of something like that, you should be careful of many other things.

One other quick note. Everyone immediately offers their “thoughts and prayers” to the victims of any tragic event. I’m sure most people’s intentions are harmless, and they genuinely feel badly about what occurred. People want to express sympathy and compassion in the face of something whose horror they can’t reconcile. The “prayer” part of that statement, especially, irks me. Obviously, one’s prayers are not going to undo the horror. No one can turn back time. What I think is truly insensitive is the people who claim that god saved them–or that god bless and protect the souls of those so callously murdered or maimed. I will be very blunt. It is unbelievably selfish to think you were spared when others weren’t. Maybe these people don’t realize this, but they should. Maybe they have survivor’s guilt. I’m not sure. Whether this slight is unintentional or not, no one needs this fact rubbed in his or her face–that you’re ok, and he or she is not; all but for the grace of god, of course. That brings me to another quite glaring logical fallacy. What kind of merciful, omnipotent,omnibenevolent god would allow for such carnage? If the answer is that people have free will, god is not doing a very good job of intervening to “protect” the innocent.

The terrorist attack that happened in Boston was unexpected and horrific. I feel terrible for everyone involved, and it scares me that authorities didn’t pick up on something so significant before a major event like the Boston Marathon which welcomes people from all over the world. I’m somewhat surprised that they don’t have any suspects at this time. I’m also floored by the incredible grace, calmness, and patience dislayed by the first responders, the officials tasked with holding press conferences, and surgeons such as Dr. Fegan of Massachusetts General Hospital, who took time off his break to talk to the press. He gave general details in a tactful way, without betraying anyone’s privacy.

An event like this is difficult enough. I just wish people–especially members of the media–would make an effort not to make these mistakes when events like this occur.

In the days following last week’s Democratic National Convention, there’s been a lot of buzz about the “significant” bounce President Obama received nationally. A litany of polls point to the fact that both the president and Democrats alike have higher favorability ratings and are seen as more trustworthy and relatable on key issues to voters—as compared to Mitt Romney and Republicans. Pollsters and pundits like to attribute this bounce to the “nearly flawless” Convention the Democrats put on. For all the talk of the “enthusiasm gap” among Democrats leading up to the Convention, it seemed the Republicans–with their bland speakers, non-detail specific plans, and most searing, visually, the lackluster crowd—comprised the party with the “enthusiasm gap”. The contrasts between the rousing call to action speeches, actual facts (which former present and all-around charmer Bill Clinton called “arithmetic”), and the diverse and engaged crowd, as compared to the Republican National Convention, couldn’t be starker.

Except that the Democratic National Convention wasn’t nearly flawless. Venue changes and speech scheduling issues aside, the “God and Jerusalem” issue of last Wednesday night is one that I would call a major flaw. Of course Democrats want to brush over it. One need only watch an obviously annoyed Nancy Pelosi repeatedly explain “it’s over” when asked about the event to know Democrats don’t want to talk about it. I bring this up not to taint the Democrats or the Convention. I want nothing more than for Barack Obama to beat Mitt Romney on November 6th. This event should not be swept under the rug, though. I want to feel proud of my party and I don’t want to think that it stands for fundamental unfairness and oligarchy, which is the conclusion I’ve drawn from the votes I saw and the (sham) presentation at the Convention regarding proposed changes to the platform. Besides the fact that I fundamentally disagree with the idea of including mentions of God in an American political party platform and I think the idea of declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel is an abhorrent display of pandering at best and possible racism at worst, the fact that DNC organizers completely ignored the will of the people is irrefutably shameful and unacceptable. We should all be up in arms about the fact that this can happen in the United States—and on TV, no less!

Some background first:

The original Democratic Party platform contained no mention of the word “God”, and it did not include the idea that Jerusalem is the official capital of Israel. There were some murmurs about the alleged God snubbing part. I was very excited about this part at the time. I felt like, perhaps, real progress had been made. Perhaps the self-professed “party of inclusion” had finally made an effort to include atheists like me. After all, Obama was the first president to mention “non-believers” in his Inaugural Address. That freezing January day on the National Mall, I was there, and I felt hope. For the first time, I really felt included. This was not to be, however. It was reported that President Obama himself was outraged at the exclusion of God in the party platform and personally—and firmly—requested that it be included. Including the term “God” in the party platform is not just an affront to me—or to atheists. It is often argued that “God” is a generic term; unlike Jesus, it doesn’t denote any specific religion. Rather, it is argued, God is a stand in for a kind of civic religion, an American spirituality. In short, however, it is a belief in some sort of “higher power”, some sort of vague “spirituality”. Even if we were to accept this idea, there are plenty of religious people who don’t believe in the concept of one god, or even the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God referred to in speech after speech by speakers at the DNC, and certainly the one referred to in the revised platform. Sure, this concept of a monotheistic God more or less covers the big three: Jews, Christians, and Muslims. The concept of this specific God does, however, leave atheists, agnostics, secularists, polytheists, and others, out in the cold.

The original Democratic Party platform also did not contain the explicit statement of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. (more on that in a minute)

At the opening of the Convention on Day 2 (or Wednesday, September 5th), some top Democrats seemed to have changed their minds about the content of their party’s platform. Perhaps they bowed to pressure (especially by Fox News, who, I’m sure, sought to discredit Democrats in any way they could), or they suddenly became alerted to their now-unacceptable omissions. Whatever the case, a voice vote was held. Former governor of Ohio and head of the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee, Ted Strickland, was introduced on stage by the Democratic National Committee Chairman (and current governor of Los Angeles) Antonio Villaraigosa. After Strickland talked about how he was an ordained minister and God’s very important to him and to the “American narrative” and how Jerusalem is, of course, the capital of Israel (though he didn’t mention anything about Israelis, Palestinians, or any reason that such a statement should be so important), Villaraigosa put the platform changes up to a vote from those in the audience. After the first vote, the “nays” seemed equal to the “yeas”. Villaraigosa tried again. The same thing happened, this time with the “nays” being shouted even louder. After hesitation and momentary panic—and after a woman on the side of the stage who we can only assume was another Party official said, “I think we’re just gonna have to let them do what they wanna do”—Villaraigosa tried one last time—with (surprise, surprise!) the same result. He then decided that, in his opinion, “two-thirds of the crowd voted in the affirmative”, and the changes were adopted. After this, very audible booing occurred from the audience. This, of course, was ignored, and what was done was done. Music was played in an attempt to drown out the prolonged booing from the audience, and the next speaker was rushed out in an effort to make a seamless transition into the rest of the Convention.

What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans in the United States? Many things, each party would have you believe, chief among them, each party’s differing views on how to move the country forward. This basically amounts to ideological differences in the role, scope, and aims of the federal government, led by either the overwhelming guiding principle of self reliance (Republicans) or the communitarian “we’re stronger together and all help one another” spirit of cooperation (Democrats). But, of course, we are all Americans, and each party will say that we are all united by basic American principles. These principles include that nebulous, but all important concept of “freedom” and that we are united by the shared belief and understanding of inalienable truths–one of those being the near sycophantic undying support for Israel. And, oh, by the way, if you even dare question Israel’s motives or say one critical word about Romney BFF “Bibi” Netanyahu, then you are anti-semitic (never mind the fact that the Semites include Palestinians as well as the Jews of the region), and are dishonoring the victims of the Holocaust. You will be cast out into the political hinterlands like one Jimmy Carter, never mind the fact that he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Oh, but so did another US president, Barack Obama. So many similarities! No wonder our poor president felt such pressure to cave. The Republicans might try to weaken him. …Except that Republicans have already questioned Obama’s commitment to Israel (in detestable terms), and will continue to do so. The Romney campaign has blatantly told the public it’s not above lying (the famous phrase by Romney’s campaign that it “will not be beholden to fact checkers”), and campaign operatives know that vitriolic rhetoric plays well with racist, ignorant members of the Republican base.

This is part of what I wrote immediately after the incident at the Convention last Wednesday:

Obama wanted control of the message. Perhaps this will all blow over in the next few days, overcome by a tsunami of enthusiasm following the president’s acceptance speech tonight. I’m sure the Obama campaign staff and the DNC inner circle are betting on the fact that this unfortunate incident will be forgotten as Democrats indulge in the inspiring, empowering speeches of Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, Julian Castro, Ted Strickland…except that Ted Strickland was the person who came out on stage, claiming his history as an ordained Methodist minister and pressing for changes to the Democratic platform. He is the face that stared at the panicked Antonio Villaraigosa as Villaraigosa asked the DNC delegation three times if it would accept the changes to the platform. When he confirmed changes, boos rang out. The admiration and affinity I had acquired for Ted Strickland, after hearing his fantastic speech the night before, had evaporated in less than 24 hours. It was replaced by feelings of anger and betrayal. I wonder if this is what Tea Partiers feel like when they claim tyranny of the government. I waited to write this until I had time to let events settle in, and I can’t see it as anything but tyranny. I know I sound hyperbolic, but how else would these actions be explained?

Religion should be separate from politics, and the United States should not be as involved in Israeli policy. What happened to “freedom” (of thought, dissent, and self determination)?

Everyone is entitled to his or her views. THAT is precisely the point I’m trying to make. The part about God and the part about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel were not originally in the Democratic platform. While I believe these things should have no place in the platform, it’s not up to me–or Strickland or Villaraigosa or Obama–hence, the vote.

These people, who seemed to amass more than one-third of the audience so much so that Villaraigosa asked three times, freaked out, and rammed it through, amidst very audible boos, had a right to be heard, and to be taken seriously. People are right to feel outraged and betrayed.

It is a party convention. The platform must be affirmed and adopted by those delegates in attendance. In this case, a two-thirds majority was necessary, and that number didn’t seem to approve of these proposals being added.

The adoption of the changes to the platform was pre-scripted and passed despite a great amount of obvious objection. Those who take issue with the platform changes, and the way in which they were adopted have no recourse for complaint. These people, the delegates, are representatives of American citizens, and are our frontline of so-called democracy. They are the representatives of our “representative republic”. If their voices are silenced or ignored, what other conclusion is there to draw than the fact that the people don’t matter to the party, that the many at the bottom matter little to those at the top? The voice of the people was overridden. It never mattered in the first place.

This is all the more ironic since the Democratic Party points to the undemocratic practices of its counterpart the Republican Party in silencing people by making it increasingly difficult for them to vote. For all of the talk of people-powered change and the progressivism of the Democratic Party during the convention, when the extension of such ideals was exercised, it meant nothing.

I’m more than disappointed. I’m angry, and I feel disillusioned and betrayed. I feel stung by a party that wants my vote, by a party that will appeal to me as a woman, as a young person, as a 99 percenter, as any number of labels, but that takes away from me the definition of the most fundamental identity of all—that of an American.

The recent attempts by authority figures at curtailing individuals’ Facebook activity are disturbing. Two recent examples of such action include attempts by employers to obtain new and prospective employees’ facebook passwords and the order by officials at a Crown Heights, Brooklyn high school that students must cancel their Facebook accounts or suffer expulsion from school (in addition to a $100 fine).

It is a new, more open world in which technology allows activity that hasn’t been regulated. Those who wish to control such activity by members of their groups are playing catch up, trying to exert control over people in a changing world. The advent of Facebook creates a plane in which people can express themselves outside of the controlled environments of school or work. On Facebook, the person is free to be himself or herself without the enforced constraints of these environments, and transcend the identifiers of “student” or “employee”.

Every day, I hear cries of “tyranny” used by people against the power of the federal government, and dismiss them as hyperbole. In the cases of cyber infringement (more of which I’m sure are to come), a smaller private body is trying to get its overarching tentacles into the personal affairs of citizens in the same way that some allege that the federal government tries to control aspects of their lives. I do not consider myself a Libertarian, but something must be said for personal freedom. Let’s be clear: these individuals are not being targeted for engaging in illegal or otherwise criminal behavior. No such invasion of their privacy or usurpation of their autonomy is necessary. Was warrantless wiretapping ok in order to listen in on people’s conversations? Many people thought it was not, and the reason given for such intrusive action was national security. Though “national security” was an ill-fitting, catch all phrase, at least it hinted at the possibility of a real reason. Nothing approaching this scale even comes close to the reasons behind destroying a large part of someone’s autonomy. Again, not hyperbole.

With the number of Facebook profiles approaching the 1 billion mark, Facebook is no mere fluke or fringe movement. It is a worldwide, easily accessible network, which makes it a threat. It is also an extension of ourselves. When the rabbis in charge of the Crown Heights school claim that the world created by the website is “not real”, they display a gross misunderstanding of the technology. Interactions occur through Facebook, but profiles also serve as a conduit for a wide-ranging manner of personal information. It is no wonder each page is called a “profile”. From photo albums which chronicle important life events to the digital recognition of personal milestones to spaces in which everything from niche interests to news stories can be disseminated and connections can be built, Facebook is like the Room of Requirement for any person wishing to use it. Yes, that was a Harry Potter reference. The next thing you know, those frightened, ignorant adults will be trying to ban that book series too. Oh, wait, that’s already happened. Thanks, overzealous Christians who think that the wizards and sorcery in children’s books are the “devil’s work”.

Digressions aside, we live in the 21st century. Such technology cannot and should not be held back because it presents uncertainty for a ruling class in any situation. Employers claim fear of liability if they don’t properly vet employees. Fine, perform background checks. Asking for a Facebook password oversteps any reasonable person’s bounds. Social networking is very new. The Internet is not much older. It is easy to forge these facts because they have become such an integral part of our lives. Because the youth have grown up in the cyber age, we have taken for granted the wonders of the Internet, particularly the freedom and the new degree of interconnectedness it allows us to have. This is all the more reason we should be aware of attempts to chip away aspects of this from us. Anything that upends the status quo is viewed warily by those in positions of power. Facebook is the latest battleground. We must protect our liberty, or someone more powerful will always try to take it away.